It has been found that variations in the framing of a statement can impact the decision process. Terms such as “no arguments for pulmonary embolism” or “no convincing evidence for pulmonary embolism” are ambiguous and may be interpreted as “diagnosis excluded” or “no conclusion.” In the same way, the terms “possible” or “probable” are also ambiguous. It was previously demonstrated that the expression “consistent with” implied estimates of probabilities ranging from 0.4 to 0.9. Moreover, Gray et al demonstrated that interpretations of lung scan reports vary widely, even when verbal probability style is used. The frame that clinicians adopted was probably controlled partly by the formulation of the record and partly by their own norms and habits. Individual preferences were assumed to be governed by a desire to maximize gain and minimize risk and the majority choice in decision is supposed to be risk averse read more canadianneighborpharmacy.com. Faced with such ambiguous terms, one can postulate that missing a pulmonary embolism was the major risk for some clinicians and that the potential side effect of anticoagulant therapy was the major risk for others. In another way, differences exist among countries, each culture having its own way of thinking, thereby implicating different usage and interpretations of words.